Let
me begin by expressing my gratitude to my friend and respected academic
colleague, Professor Peter Ekeh, Chairperson of the Urhobo Historical
Society,
for the invitation extended to me to deliver the Keynote Address at
this year’s
conference of the society. I confess that my initial reaction was to
turn down
the invitation. Why? Because I feared that what I say in this address
could, in
years to come, be quoted out of context by scholars and pseudo-scholars
in a
manner that could worsen rather than improve inter-group relations
between the
Urhobo and my people, the Isoko. This fear derives from the way my
existing
writings have been used in the seemingly endless tensions between the
Itsekiri
and the Urhobo.

That
I am standing before you is evidence that I overcame the fear expressed
above.
As the only Professor of History from these parts who has studied our
history,
I consider that I should, even at the risk of being misunderstood and
mis-quoted, take the opportunity such as I have this day, to draw
attention to
certain issues about history and historical research which quite a few
of those
currently involved in writing the history of our peoples have either
tended to
ignore or are ignorant of. I say this, not in a spirit of condemnation,
but out
of a genuine concern to influence the tenor of future historical
writings
concerning our peoples. First, what is history? In the last thirty odd
years, I
have, in all my public lectures, used a definition of History that I
find most
apt. “History,” says Robert V. Daniels, “is the memory of human group
experience. If it is forgotten or ignored, we cease in that measure to
be
human. Without history we have no knowledge of who we are or how we
came to be,
like victims of collective amnesia groping in the dark for our
identity. It is
the events recorded in history that have generated all the emotion, the
values,
the ideals that make life meaningful, that have given men something to
live
for, struggle over, die for. 1All
who get involved in the writing of history will do well to remember
that
what they write can generate tremendous emotions, and give “men
something to
live for, struggle over, die for.” Meeting as we are here in Ephron, we
are
close enough to Warri to know that, indeed, people have died because of
the
events recorded in history. This places tremendous responsibility on
the
historian. He must carefully choose his words. He must remind himself
that history
is not static. Fresh evidence necessarily leads to new arguments and
altered
conclusions. Take me, for example. I no longer hold some of the views
in my
published books because, among other reasons, other scholars have
produced
works that force me to re-think my earlier conclusions. There is also
the fact
that I have matured over the years, and come to a greater appreciation
of the
significance of my discipline. I realize that what I write can be put
to uses
that I never intended. For this reason, I exercise great care over what
I say
and how I say it.

Whoever
writes history, whether he be a trained historian or an amateur, needs
to ask
himself/herself what is the purpose of history. In my Inaugural
Lecture,
delivered as far back as 1979 at the University of Ibadan,
I said: “For
if history is to serve any useful purpose at all, it must deepen man’s
understanding of why and how things have happened."2I
quoted Marc Block who had written: “…a single word ‘understanding’ is
the
beacon light of our studies…. We are never sufficiently understanding.
Whoever
differs from us – a foreigner or a political adversary – is almost
inevitably
considered evil. A little more understanding of people would be
necessary …in
the conflicts which are unavoidable."3The
purpose of history, according to J. H. Plumb, “is to deepen
understanding about
men and society, not for its own sake, but in the hope that a
profounder
awareness would help to mould human attitudes and human action."4Often, the historian
finds himself challenged by prevailing problems to
probe
the past with a view to seeking greater understanding of the present.
That was
how I chose to study Itsekiri – Urhobo Relations for my Ph.D. I was a
boy of
sixteen when the Itsekiri-Urhobo riots of 1952 took place. I was a
student of
what was then WarriCollege, Ughelli.
As a
consequence of the riots of 1952, the name, WarriProvince, was changed to DeltaProvince.
And because of that change ofname, the
name of my school was changed to GovernmentCollege,
Ughelli. I was
in Class III. Even so, I was struck by the events of 1952. When later
in life I
had the opportunity to engage in historical research, I chose to study
Itsekiri- Urhobo relations in order to seek understanding of why the
events of
1952 took place! The present (the situation that arose in 1952 was “the
present”) thus led to a study of the past, and the events of the past
threw
light on why things happened the way they happened in 1952! “Great
history,” E.
H. Carr wrote long ago, “is written precisely when the historian’s
vision of
the past is illuminated by insights into the problems of the present.5

One
more point may be made here. The historian studies the past. But that
past is
not a dead past. It is a past that has relevance for the present.
Permit me to
illustrate. It is not uncommon for the coastal peoples of the Delta
region to
say that the hinterland peoples were their slaves in times past!
Nothing whips
up greater emotions than a statement like that. The historian involved
in
studying Delta-Hinterland relations must be aware of the kind of
reactions that
his/her work may elicit. A sensitive historian would therefore take the
trouble
to provide details as to how slaves were actually obtained in the days
of the
slave trade. I know, from my own researches, for example, that the bulk
of the
hinterland slaves who were taken to the coast and sold overseas were
enslaved
not by the coastal traders but by their own people, i.e. hinterland
peoples,
eager to make a profit from the slave trade. Besides, not all slaves
who found
their way to the Eastern Delta, for example, were Igbo as is often
presumed.
Many slaves came from further north, through Igboland, to the coastal
states.
Details such as these provide greater understanding, even if they
cannot guarantee
that in the heat of today’s politics, irresponsible statements,
designed to
deepen acrimony rather than understanding, will not be made! The
historian’s
task is to lay before his reader as much of the evidence as is
available to
him. When he has done that and commented objectively on his evidence,
he must
leave the rest to his reader. Knowledge of the fact that the past
impinges on
the present should compel him to be faithful to the canons of
historical
scholarship. I fear that some of those who are today acclaimed as
historians of
Group A or Group B are not familiar with the canons of historical
scholarship,
and so cannot be faithful to them.

The Historian and His Evidence: I must not conclude this Preamble without
saying a
word about the historian and his evidence. The evidence the historian
uses is
created by others. This being so, the historian must seek to know who
created
the document – whether written or oral; when it was created; whether
there are
other documents which confirm or contradict it; in what circumstances
it was
created; whether there was the likelihood of prejudice, and so on. It
is not
enough to latch on to a single document or even to a series of
documents
without subjectingit or them to close
scrutiny. Permit me to use an example that concerns me. In 2000, there
was
published the book Leadership, Unity and
the Future of the Urhobos. This was a collection of lectures on the
occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the death of Chief
Mukoro Mowoe.
In that collection is a chapter on “Mukoro Mowoe and Urhobo Destiny and
History” by Peter Ekeh. In his presentation, Ekeh wrote, in one of the
sections
of the chapter: “Between 1884 and 1894, Nana terrorized the Urhobo
areas with
the weapons of violence he acquired from the British. The sour
relations
between Nana and Urhobo merchants came to a head when Nana assaulted
and
abducted Oraka of Okpara Waterside.” Ekeh goes on to discuss Urhobo
reaction
which was to impose a trade boycott which caught the attention of the
British.
“The British were clearly unhappy with Nana’s conduct and so decided to
deal
with the Urhobo directly… Nana’s attempt to block direct British
trading
relations with the Urhobo was the principal cause of the military
encounter of
1894 that led to Nana’s exile in that year."6

Because
I had the privilege of seeing the chapter before publication, I drew
Ekeh’s
attention to the fact that he had fully accepted the British view of
the events
of 1894, and that that view was not all there was. He dutifully gave my
position in a footnote at page 49 of that book, for which I am
grateful.
However, in the bookWarri
City and British Colonial Rule in Western Niger Delta,
published first
in 2004 and re-printed in 2005, Ekeh maintains the same position as he
took in
2000.7

It
is not that Professor Ekeh’s position is baseless. Not at all. It is in
fact
based on documents created by Vice-Consul Gallwey and Acting
Consul-General
Ralph Moor. These servants of the British empire had to create the kind
of
documents that would make the Foreign Office in London sanction a war against Nana.
Every
coastal trader objected to the British trading directly with hinterland
peoples. In the treaty of 1884 Nana had led other Itsekiri traders to
strike
out the clause in the treaty which permitted free trade with the
hinterland,
just as Jaja of Opobo had done.8In
other words, British efforts at direct trade with the hinterland of
Itsekiriland were in contravention of a subsisting treaty. In fact,
minutes on
various dispatches from the Niger Coast Protectorate to London indicate
quite clearly that the
British appreciated that Nana was within his rights in seeking to
protect his
trading areas from British penetration. That is not all. The British
accused
Nana of a trade monopoly. But the Royal Niger Company, a British
chartered
company, had, by reason of its charter, been allowed to build a trade
monopoly.
When the Brass people in frustration attacked the Royal Niger Company,
the
British Government in 1895, the year after they had exiled Nana, sent
an expedition
against Brass and imposed their rule on that city state. How do we
explain
this? This was the age of the imposition of British colonial rule over
what
became Nigeria.
Britain
used any excuse to ensure that the end in view was achieved. The
historian of this
period owes a duty to sketch in detail the circumstances in which what
happened
happened. This is what I have done in my biography of Nana – Merchant Prince of the Niger Delta.9Peter
Ekeh doesn’t have to accept my views.
Historical scholarship would demand, however, that he should take
issues with
my position. An examination of the history of the document he used
could well
have led him to a slightly different conclusion. The force that the
British
sent against Nana in 1894 consisted of four British warships, over 300
marines,
virtually all the military force of the Niger Coast Protectorate, and
some
twenty five officers, commanded by Rear Admiral F. G. Bedford, the
Supreme
Commander of Britain’s
African squadron.10Can Professor Ekeh really
believe that the British put themselves to
such great
expense and trouble in the interest of the Urhobo – to save them from
the
tyranny of Nana? I don’t think so. The British were interested in
destroying
the control which the coastal traders had over the trade of thehinterland, so they could take over both the
coast and the hinterland. The fall of Nana led to the fall of
Itsekiriland to
the British, followed in the years 1895-1910 by the fall of Urhoboland
to the
British. It is knowledge of these truths that have conditioned my
assessment of
Nana’s place in the history of the years of British conquest of Nigeria.
Today,
that aspect of our history has ceased to take centre stage. Therefore
scholars
may be tempted to reach different conclusions. That is their
prerogative. All I
ask is that all the evidence readily available should be allowed to
inform the
conclusions reached.

In
all the writings – and there has been quite some writing – about
Itsekiri-Urhobo
relations in the last five years, I have been struck by the fact that
on both
sides there has been tremendous respect for the British records. I
wonder
whether those concerned have ever stopped to ask how the word
“Protection” or
“Protectorate” was translated into Itsekiri or Urhobo and who did the
translation! One of those who signed as witness in the treaties made in
the
“Warri District” was a Saro called Alder after whom Alder’s Town in
Warri was
named. How did this Saro translate English into Urhobo or Itsekiri?
What was
the understanding of our peoples of the treaties they signed? Treaties
apart,
how do we know that what we read in the various British records are
indeed facts?
In the 1961/62 session, as part of my Ph.D. work, I visited virtually
every
polity in Urhoboland and sat with the elders who talked to me about
their
history. Some of what they told me was in sharp contrast with what I
had read
in the British records. In 1963 while in London,
I sought to talk with retired colonial officers who had served in the
then WarriProvince.
A number of them gave me lunch at the Commonwealth Institute. I was
amazed at
their candour. Virtually all of them admitted that they found
themselves
sometimes having to write what their senior officers would like to read
rather
than what happened. They reminded me that they were young and
inexperienced;
that they wanted to get on in their chosen careers, and therefore had
to be
careful not to say the wrong things about persons favoured by their
seniors! In
many of the cases I raised with them, they agreed that what the elders
told me
was more correct than what they wrote in their annual reports, and the
like.
This is what I mean by saying that the historian has to seek to know
the
history of the documents he decides to use. Various factors decide what
is
written and how it is written; what is transmitted orally to younger
generations and how it is transmitted. The user of historical documents
has
always to be aware of this reality, and so to let that awareness
influence the
conclusions he reaches and his presentation of those conclusions.Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons why I
accepted the invitation to speak here today is to say what I have said
thus
far. Having so done, I can now go on to the subject of Urhobo – Isoko
Relations.

Of Urhobo and Isoko

One
of the questions which any one interested in the study of inter-group
relations
must ask himself is when the groups he is studying came to be known as
they are
now known. In the context of our subject, who are the Urhobo and who
are the
Isoko? Can we, for example, meaningfully speak of Urhobo-Isoko
relations in the
18th century? If we can, how would we define Urhobo or Isoko? Did my
people,
the Evohwa in today’s Isokoland, have any identifiable relations with
Ughienvwe, for example? Did the Isoko group of Ozoro have any relations
with
the Urhobo group of Evwreni in the 17th century? On what
sources do
we, can we, depend for a re-construction of such relations? All the
groups who
constitute Urhoboland today speak the Urhobo language. Did they, for
that
reason, regard themselves as a socio-political group with identical
political
and economic interests that they defended against other groups in the
period
before our colonial experience? The same questions can be asked about
the
Isoko. Did a common language, or mutually intelligible dialects, result
in a
common political identity such as can enable us speak of Urhobo – Isoko
relations in pre-colonial times? I have always found this a knotty
question in
my writings about inter-group relations.

Today
we speak of the Hausa as an ethnic nationality within the Nigerian
nation-
state. But the history of Hausaland from the 16th to the 18th
century reveals constant struggles for supremacy between the various
Hausa
states – Kano, Zazzau, Zamfara, Kebi, etc.11A
common language did not result in a union of all of the Hausa states.
Each
state had its separate identity and its interests. The same was true
for
Yorubaland. The Yoruba wars of the 19th century were not
civil wars.
They were inter-state wars, fought to protect or extend the interests
of the
various Yoruba-speaking states.12Here too, as indeed
elsewhere in the country, a common language did not
result
in a single state, embracing all the Yoruba-speaking people. Can we, in
the
light of this reality, speak, for example, of Yoruba-Hausa relations in
the 18th
century? Which Hausa state? Which Yoruba state? What is the point of
this
discourse? This, that today we speak of our various ethnic groups or
nationalities as single entities – Yoruba, Efik, Tivi, Angas, Igbo,
Urhobo,
Hausa, Isoko, Idzon, etc. These nationalities only began to make sense
in the
colonial state of Nigeria
and in the independent nation-state of Nigeria in which language
was used
to identify whole groups and to differentiate them from the others.
This was
not the case in the earlier period of the history of the peoples
concerned.

What
the above means is that whereas Urhobo and Isoko groups that were
geographically contiguous or not too far the one from the other would
have
maintained commercial and social relations (Iyedi–Ughelli,
Enwhe–Evwreni, for
example); whereas centres that were famous for specific products would
have
attracted people form considerable distances (like the Uzere “Eni Juju”
didright up to the opening years of
colonial
rule), it would be strictly wrong to speak of Urhobo–Isoko relations
understood
as involving all of Urhoboland and all of Isokoland. And because there
had not
come into being pan-Urhobo and pan-Isoko interests, conflicts between
one Isoko
group and one Urhobo group would not necessarily have brought in other
groups.
Even when groups were involved in the long-distance trade, they did not
trade qua Isoko or qua Urhobo. It was
the needs of the various Urhobo and Isoko groups
that determined their relationships – commercial, social
(intermarriage, for
example) ritual, etc. with neighbouring groups.

There
are traditions of “wars” between certain Isoko groups and certain
Urhobo groups
– for example Ughweru – Enwe, Igbide – Evwreni, Iyede-Ewu, Emevor –
Agbarha,
Ughweru-Igbide.[13Virtually all of these wars were
fought over
disputes about ownership of land, as the population of the various
groups
increased and there was a need for more land. Sometimes “wars” were
fought over
run-away women! These “wars” were fought between the groups indicated.
My
position is that it would be strictly wrong to speak of these wars as
Urhobo-Isoko wars, as if all of the Urhobo groups and all of the Isoko
groups
got involved in them. Usually the kind of “wars” mentioned above ended
with the
groups entering into pacts of perpetual friendship which forbade future
wars. I
repeat here what I have said elsewhere, that our ancestors knew how to
work
towards accommodation in the interest of peaceful co-existence.14In the heat and
differences of today those who lead the various
nationalities will do well to imitate their ancestors and seek
accommodation
and promote peace.

Traditions of Origin and Isoko-Urhobo
Relations

If
there is any aspect of the history of the various peoples of Nigeria
about
which no one can speak with any exactitude, it is that which deals with
the
origins of our peoples. In my earlier writings, I claim that most of
the Urhobo
and Isoko groups are of Benin origin; that Ewu, Ughelli and Ughienvwe
are of
Ijo origin; that Evwreni, Igbede, Enwe and Olomu have Igbo connections;
that
Ephron is of Erohwa (in Isokoland) origin; that Agbon is of Irri (in
Isokoland)
origin; that the Okpe kingdom and the Okpe group in Isoko are related,
the
former having migrated from the latter; that Olomoro is of Olomu origin.15These views as expressed
in the 1960s and 1970s are decidedly
simplistic and
were based on British Intelligence Reports of the 1930s and my field
work of
1961-1963. Can we deduce anything from these claims of origin in terms
of
Isoko-Urhobo relations? Before we answer that question, let us take a
look at
what two Urhobo scholars have said about the origin of the Agbon,
Uvwie, Okpe –
those groups that I had indicated are linked to Isoko groups in origin,
and
about Evwreni and Olomu origins.

According
to Professor Onigu Otite, the eponymous ancestor of the Agbon was
called Agbon.
He goes on: “He was believed to be a son of Ukonurhoro, an Urhobo
migrant from
Udo…. Agbon had a long migratory history through Kwale, settling at one
time in
Enhwe and Erhivwi (Irri) in Isoko Division from where he moved to a
settlement
called Utokori, near Ughweru, then to Olomu, and finally, through the
present
Ughelle territory of Ighwreko and Ekiugbo to found the town of Agbon
(Otorho
r’Agbon)."16What
does Otite mean by “an Urhobo migrant from Udo?” That Agbon’s father
was
already Urhobo before he left Udo, which I understand to mean Benin?
When he
says Agbon settled at Enhwe and Irri in Isokoland, are we to understand
that
these places already existed as such before the coming of Agbon? These
are only
a few of the kind of questions that confront anyone dealing with
traditions of
origin.

As
for Uvwie, Otite states that Uvwie lived at Ife. From there he migrated
eastwards. He
settled at Erugbo in the creeks of OndoState.
Subsequently he
“settled in a territory in which Erohwa situates.” The Uvwie left
Erohwa and
settled in Ephron-Otor from where they migrated to their present
territory.”
Later on Otite writes, “…..we may say that Erohwa may be regarded as
the parent
settlement of Ephon Otor"17

It
is again Otite who writes about what we know today as the Okpe kingdom.
Otite
indicates that there are two stages in the evolution of Okpe. The first
has to
do with traditions that there was a man called Uhobo who fathered those
who
became known as Okpe and who lived in Benin territory for some
time. A
variant of this tradition says the Okpe are descended from an ancient
ruler in Ife.
Otite does not
consider this tradition too seriously. The central stage of Okpe
history, says
Otite, is clearer. This has to do with a man named Igboze leaving Benin
territory, moving into Ijo territory around where Patani now is, and
then
settling “in present Erohwa territory in Isokoland.” Okpe would, in
this
account, appear to have been one of Igboze’s children. He founded a
kingdom of
his own near Erohwa. He moved on to Okpe in Olomu. It would appear that
Okpe
also had some connection with Okpe in today’s Isokoland. Orhue, one of
four
sons of Okpe, later left Okpe – Olomu and established himself in the territory of Orerokpe. Otite draws attention
to the
fact there is a connection between Okpe – Isoko, Okpe-Olomu and
Oreokpe, and
these three units exchange annual visits, especially during festivals.18

M.
Y. Nabofa’s account of Olomu indicates that the Isoko polity of Olomoro
was
founded by persons from Oto-Orere-Olomu. I make the same point in myThe Isoko People. The Isoko town of Otibio is also of Olomu
origin, according to Nabofa.19Nabofa’s opening sentence
in his chapter on Evwreni is: “The
traditional story
of the origin of Evwreni is intimately bound up with those of Igbide,
Emede and
Enhwe. The place of origin is said to be somewhere in Igboland. The
ancestors
of Igbide, Enhwe and Evwreni are said to have left Igboland. Emede was,
according to some of the traditions, a friend of Okpolo, the founder of
Enhwe.
The Evwreni and Enhwe first settled in one place before the Evwreni
moved on to
their present location."20

In
virtually all of the traditions of origin there is some reference to Benin.
Clearly,
it was fashionable to claim Benin
origin because of the reputation that attached to that kingdom. The
linguistic
evidence has, however, called to question claims of Benin
origin by the Urhobo and
Isoko. According to Ben Elugbe, the Edo language (by this he means the
language
of Benin
proper), the Urhobo language andthe
Isoko language, among others, which he classifies as Edoid, are of
about the
same antiquity. To say this is to say that the Urhobo or Isoko language
could
not have developed after migration from Benin. Elugbe therefore
posits that
the Bini, Urhobo, Isoko and other Edoid groups had a common origin in
the
distant past, and migrated to their present locations in different
waves at different
times.21If this be so, then the
reference’s to Benin
in the traditions of
the
Urhobo and Isoko could well refer to later (rather than founding)
migrations
into areas already inhabited by groups who spoke the Urhobo and Isoko
languages. It is, so it is argued, because the Benin
migrations were the latest
that they are the most remembered. As I indicated earlier, we would
never know
for sure the full details of migrations that took place thousands of
years ago.

Let
us now go back to the question I raised earlier whether we can deduce
anything
about Urhobo-Isoko relations from the traditions of origin. In 1976
Professor
P. A. Igbafe, a fellow historian, delivered a lecture in which he said:
“Taken
as an entity, the Bendel State is a microcosm of the whole country – a
sort of
miniature Nigeria in the heterogeneity of its peoples, the plurality of
languages and the diversity of resources. Yet there abounds in the
state a
marked homogeneity in cultural traditions rooted
ina common ancestry"22(my emphasis). This
lecture provoked a rejoinder from a group at the University of Ibadan
and the Ibadan
Polytechnic among
whom were S.U. Erivwo, N.Y. Nabofa and G.G. Darah – sons of Urhoboland.
In this
rejoinder they said among other things that “Igbafe’s history is
…..politically
damaging.” “It is difficult not to think,” they wrote, “that Igbafe’s
Bendel
History was ill-motivated against certain ethnic groups."23Igbafe’s lecture was
delivered in August 1976. In November of the same
year I
delivered a lecture to the University of Benin
Historical Association
entitled The Historian and Politics: The
Bendel State Situation.24In that lecture I drew
attention to Igbafe’s lecture and the rejoiner
from the
Urhobo group in Ibadan.
And I asked: “What does it matter where Group A came from?” Surely, the
group
from which group A came also came from another group, I argued. I made
the
point that it is unacceptable to me to assume that if Group Z migrated
from
Group Y then group Z was vassal to Group Y, bearing in mind that
sometimes
migrations took place as acts of rebellion or protest. If groups moved
out of a
given kingdom or polity as a protest against the ruler of that polity,
it is
unlikely that they would thereafter put themselves under the vassalage
of the
polity from which they moved. I argued that origins in themselves
cannot be
used as determinants of inter-group relations. A more interesting point
of
inquiry is the relations which subsisted between the group that moved
and the group
from which it moved – after the former settled in its new habitat.

As
will become clear later, the sore point in Isoko-Urhobo relations is
the claim
by the Urhobo that the Isoko are Urhobo. Only yesterday, Olurogun Moses
Taiga
spoke of us, the Isoko people as “the Eastern Division of the Urhobo
Nation”.
The implication of this is that the Urhobo are a nation; the Isoko are
a
sub-group of the Urhobo nation. Permit me to ask; Are the Isoko junior
brothers
to the Urhobo? Are they (the Isoko) descendants of the Urhobo? Is there
anything in the traditions of origin of the two groups that can be used
to
support the claim that the Isoko are Urhobo? My researches have not
thrown up
any evidence in support of such a conclusion. If two Isoko towns –
Olomoro and
Otibio – have Olomu, an Urhobo polity, as place of origin, that cannot
make the
Isoko Urhobo. The fact that Uvwie, Okpe, Agbon, Evwreni have traditions
which
link them to Isoko, polities does not and cannot make them Isoko. The
migrations about which these traditions speak took place over a
thousand years
ago. The migrant groups went on to develop their own separate
identities. Those
identities have to be recognized and respected.

The
above is not to say that contacts made during migrations do not impact
on
inter-group relations. Take Uvwie-Erohwa relations, for example. I am
from
Erohwa. And I know that there exist certain special relations between
these two
groups even up till today. Those relations are such that promote peace
between
the two groups. No Uvwie person would lay violent hands on an Erohwa
person.
The Uvwie deity owhoru, is the same
as the Erohwa deity that goes by the same name. At festival times, as
we saw
earlier, Okpe-Isoko, Okpe-Olomu and the Okpe of Orerokpe exchange
visits.
Olomoro in Isokoland used to visit Olomu in Urhoboland during the
annual
festivals. Ancient ties thus continue to be remembered without
detracting from
the separate identities that have developed over time.

British Colonial Rule and Isoko-Urhobo
Relations

The
details of the establishment and working of British rule in Isokoland
and
Urhoboland are available in a number of my published works25and so will not detain us
here. In what follows, attention will be
drawn to the
effects of British rule on Urhobo-Isoko relations. As prelude to that,
however,
there is the need to provide the administrative framework established
by the
British. When the Niger Coast Protectorate was established in 1891,
British
Vice-Consulates were established in Warri, Benin
River and
Sapele. The Benin River Vice-Consulate was closed down in 1892. British
penetration into Urhoboland and Isokoland thus took place from Warri
and
Sapele. In 1900 the Niger Coast Protectorate gave way to what was known
as the
Protectorate of Southern Nigeria. This protectorate was divided into
three
Divisions – Western, Central and Eastern. The Urhobo belonged to the
Western
Division. The bulk of the Isoko were placed in the Agberi District of
the Central
Division, andthe others in the Western
Division. Then came 1906, when a new protectorate – Colony and
Protectorate of
Southern Nigeria was created. This protectorate was broken into the
Colony of
Lagos, Western, Central and EasternProvinces.
Warri was the
headquarters of the CentralProvince and the Urhobo and Isoko belonged
to the
Warri Division of the CentralProvince, with
Warri
serving as Divisional Headquarters. The amalgamation of 1914 resulted
in
further re-structuring. The colonial state was broken into provinces.
One of
these was WarriProvince, to which
the Isoko and Urhobo
belonged. Within WarriProvince, the
Urhobo and
Isoko were placed in Warri Division, with Warri as Divisional
Headquarters.26In the context of this
address, the point to stress is that none of the
Nigerian peoples had a say in deciding to which Division, District or
Province
they would belong. The British were in these years establishing the
colonial
state of Nigeria.
In the process they had to break up the territory into administrative
units.
The administrative units which the British established were not based
on any
clearly-worked out principles. Ethnic homogeneity was clearly not a
consideration. The British hardly knew the peoples they brought
together into
provinces, divisions and districts. They clearly did not realize that
the new
units of administration they created favoured some groups and worked
hardship
on others. Nor did it enter into their thinking that as they brought
Nigerians
together into new groupings and for new purposes, they inadvertently
threw up
new challenges of relationships between these groups.27This was what happened as
we shall see, between the Isoko and the
Urhobo.

The Native Court System: As the British pushed into the Urhobo and
Isoko hinterland
from the coast, so they began to establish agencies for local
administration.
In the yeas from 1900-1930, it was the native courts established by the
British
that constituted these agencies of local administration. Details of the
Native Court
system
as it worked among the Urhobo and Isoko are available in my Niger
Delta Rivalry. In this
presentation we shall restrict ourselves to aspects of the working of
that
system which impacted on Urhobo-Isoko relations. The native courts
established
by the British were supposed to replace the peoples’ existing system of
justice. They also doubled as local governments charged with
discharging even
non-judicial functions of local government. As with provinces,
divisions and
districts, it was the British who decided where to site native courts,
and
which polities in Urhoboland and Isokoland were to attend which native
court.
Thus in 1902 a native court was established at Okpare in the Urhobo
polity of
Olomu. The Isoko polities of Iyede, Emevor and Owe were required by law
to take
their case to the Okpare native court, thereby giving Okpare a
jurisdiction
over these Isoko groups that never existed before. The Isoko groups
resented
the long distances they were required to cover to attend court. Luckily
in 1905
a native court was established at Iyede which had jurisdiction over
Emevor and
Owe. In the previous year (1904), a native court, the first in
Isokoland, had
been established at Uzere. Oleh, Emede, Igbide and a number of other
towns were
required to attend the Uzere court. My people of Erohwa and those of Ume were put under the native court sited at
Patani, an
Ijo town. Inadvertently, British colonial rule began to confer
advantages on
certain centres, while other groups resented the new arrangements which
required them to leave their territory and go elsewhere to have their
cases
adjudicated. In these early years of British rule, the answer our
people found
for these new inequities was to ignore the new native courts and carry
on as
they had always done. Urhobo-Isoko relations thus continued on an even
keel in
this period. In fact as new roads began to be built, as a new pax began to be established, there was
easier and greater movement of peoples and goods in the area of
Urhoboland and
Isokoland. Thus part of the consequence of the coming of British
colonial rule
was greater and easier contacts between these two peoples.
Paradoxically,
however, greater and easier contacts contained the seeds of new
conflicts and
new tensions.

The Lugardian System: The amalgamation of 1914 brought with it
certain
changes. As already indicated, the entire colonial state was divided
into
provinces, WarriProvince being
one. The Urhobo and Isoko
belonged to Warri Division, with headquarters at Warri, the
headquarters of the
provincial administration. The head of the provincial administration
was the
Resident. He had his office in Warri. A District Officer (D.O.) was in
charge
of the Division. He also had his office in Warri. The Ijo of today’s DeltaState,
the Itsekiri, most the Urhobo and all of the Isoko belonged to Warri
Division.
The D.O. in Warri was expected to supervise this entire area. The Isoko
were
the most distant from headquarters, and only infrequently received
visits from
their D.O. This meant that in the year 1914-26 Isoko affairs received
comparatively limited attention from the D.O in Warri. This was a
distinct
disadvantage.

Amalgamation
and the coming of the Lugardian system are sometimes presented as
having
brought about radical innovations in the functioning of local
government. In
fact there are those who would argue that Lugard introduced “Native
Administration” into Southern Nigeria
as from
1914. My position about the Lugardian system in WarriProvince
has been articulated elsewhere.28In the context of today’s
discourse, certain comments are needful.
Lugard
sought to make a legal distinction between native courts functioning as
judicial institution and native courts functioning as native
authorities, i.e.
performing the executive functions of local government. Thus there was
a Native
Courts Ordinance and a Native Authorities Ordinance which gave legal
backing to
the native courts and native authorities. Among the Isoko and Urhobo,
the same
personnel constituted the native courts and native authorities. Because
the work
of local government had to be done, Lugard established many more courts
in the
area of our study than was the case up to 1914. Whereas there were only
three
native courts in Isokoland up to 1913, there were seven such courts in
the
period 1914-1927. In Urhoboland the numbers were seven in the earlier
period
and fifteen in the latter period. No Isoko groups attended court in
Urhobolandin the latter period. The
number of courts indicated meant that there were still groups both in
Urhoboland and Isokoland that did not have native courts of their own
even in
the Lugardian period.29

British
colonial administration at local level in our area of study from
1900-1932 was
dominated by those referred to as Warrant
Chiefs. These were the
persons appointed to sit on the native courts. In the period under
consideration, quite a number of these warrant chiefs would not have
been
appointed had their standing in the traditional system determined their
appointment. Whether the warrant chiefs had traditional status or not,
they
owed their appointments to the British more than their people.Once appointed, they became the most powerful
persons in their polities and were wont to abuse their powers. With the
court
clerks and court messengers in their khaki uniforms and badges of
office, the
warrant chiefs made up the unholy trinity of the Warrant Chief System.
There
were instances in which the people rose against them. A few court
clerks were
killed in some of these risings. Details are available in my Niger Delta Rivalry and other writings.

Two
other aspects of the Lugardian system must receive our attention if we
are to
understand what led to the tensions that developed in Urhobo-Isoko
relations in
the years 1932- c. 1952. Lugard was enamoured of the emirate type of
set-up in Northern Nigeria and the
Obaship system in Yorubaland.
The emirs and some of the Yoruba obas were gazetted as “First Class
Chiefs.”
Some other obas and some non-emir, non-oba chiefs were appointed
“Second Class
Chiefs.” Lugard regarded the First Class and Second Class Chiefs as
superior
native authorities. This meant that other native authorities in the
same
Division as the First Class or Second Class Chief were legally
pronounced to be
subordinate to the First Class or Second Class Chief. In our area of
study
Lugard appointed Omadoghogbone Numa (“Chief Dore Numa” – “Dore” being
the
British rendition of Dogho, the shortened form of Omadoghogbone), an
Itsekiri
chief, as a Second Class Chief and gazetted all the other native
authorities in
WarriProvince as subordinate to
Dogho. In
practice this meant that all thenative
authorities in Ijoland, Urhoboland, Isokoland, Ndokwaland (Ukwuani) and
Itsekiriland were made subordinate to an Itsekiri chief who, before
this time,
had absolutely nothing to do with these other peoples. Once so
appointed, all
who had ambitions to be appointed to the native courts began to court
the
favour of Chief Dogho Numa. This arbitrary paramountcy granted to Dogho
became
the most odious aspect of British colonial rule in the period
1918-1932, when
Dogho died.

Perhaps
Dogho’s arbitrary paramountcy would not have been so odious if Lugard
did not,
at the same time, establish a Native Court of Appeal for WarriProvince,
and appoint Chief Dogho the Permanent President of that court, in his
capacity
as superior native authority. Native courts administered “native laws
and
customs.” Each ethnic group and even sub-group had its own “native
law.” To
appoint an Itsekiri to preside over appeals from Isokoland, Ijoland,
Urhoboland
and even Ndokwaland – appeals arising from “native law and custom” was
in
itself a travesty of justice. Yet the British not only did it, but
turned a
deaf ear to the many protests from these other ethnic groups in the
years
1918-1926. In 1926, some action was taken in response to the peoples’
protests.
First Sapele and the “Kwale Division” of WarriProvince
had a separate Court of Appeal established for them. Then an Ase
–Sub-District
was established for the Isoko and an Isoko Appeal Court set up in the
Ase for them. An Assistant
District Officer was appointed to oversee the Isoko, with his base in
Ase. For
the first time under British colonial rule, the Isoko were recognized
as a
separate group. Admittedly, Ase is not located in Isokoland, it being
in Aboh
territory. But Ase is much closer to Isokoland than Warri. The Isoko
were
naturally delighted at the British reaction to their protests against
the
arbitrary paramountcy of Dogho over them through the Native Court of
Appeal in
Warri.

The Anti-Tax Riots of 1927-28 and the
Emergence of the “Sobo Division”:
Lugard left Nigeria
well before 1927. However, it was in that year that the British decided
to
implement his idea about raising revenue for Native Administration
through
taxing the people. The introduction of taxation into WarriProvince
led to an eruption of violent riots all over the province.30The most striking feature
of these riots was that it was against the
warrant
chiefs, the court clerks and court messengers that the peoples of the
province
vented their anger. Many had their houses burnt; many were viciously
manhandled. The British, as was expected, reacted with greater
violence,
arrests and imprisonments. The riots, however, achieved a major success
– the
reorganization of native administration in the then WarriProvince.31This reorganization was
preceded by a thorough investigation of the
peoples’
socio-political systems. It was this investigation that produced the Intelligence
Reports on the various polities of the province, which researchers
continue
to use up till today. The investigation having been concluded, the
British
studied the reports and reached the conclusion that Native
Administration in
the province should be based on the traditional system. For the
British, this
meant the setting up of village courts and “Clan” courts for each
polity in the
province, with members being chosen either according to tradition or
elected by
the people, not appointed directly by the British. The logical
corollary was
that administrative Divisions should henceforth follow ethnic lines, in
order
to remove the kind of disaffection that Dogho’s arbitrary paramountery
had
created. Accordingly, the Resident, WarriProvince,
set about
reorganizing the province. He established four Divisions – Aboh
Division,
Western Ijo Division, Sobo Division and Jekri-Sobo Division.

Despite
all the paper work that preceded this reorganization, despite the
guideline of
letting Native Administration follow traditional practice, the
Jekri-Sobo
Division and the Sobo Division were deviations from the enunciated
policy
indicated above. The Jekri-Sobo Division was made up of the Itsekiri
and five
Urhobo polities-Udu, Okpe, Oghara, Uvwie and Agbon. Each of this
polities had
its local administration based on its traditional system, just as the
Itsekiri had
theirs. But at Divisional level, these Urhobo polities and the Itsekiri
were to
have a common Native Administration and a common Treasury. The Resident
argued
that the Itsekiri and these Urhobo groups were so socially mixed
through
marriage and other contacts that they could be expected in the not
distant
future to fuse into one ethnic group!! It was strange reasoning. From
the very
beginning, the Urhobo in the Jekri-Sobo Division protested against this
arrangement, and they kept protesting until 1 April, 1938 when two
separate
Native Administrations – Western Urhobo Native Administration with
headquarters
in Orerokpe, and an Itsekiri Native Administration with Warri as
headquarters,
were established. For no really satisfactory reason, the British
retained the
“Jekri-Sobo Division” even in 1938, though the two ethnic groups in it
had been
granted separate Native Administrations. Let the point be made here
that the
Urhobo groups not in the Jekri-Sobo Division supported their brothers
in their
protests against inclusion in the Jekri-Sobo Division.

The
Creation of Sobo Division and Developments in
Isoko-Urhobo Relation, 1932 – 1952

The
tax riots that erupted in WarriProvince in the
years
1927-28 were more than a protest against taxation. Taxation merely
provided the
occasion for the peoples of the then WarriProvince
to express their
dissatisfaction with British colonial rule as it had impacted on them
at the
local level.32For
their part, the British were forced, for the first time, to take a hard
look at
their policies as well as to study the indigenous socio-political
systems of
the peoples over whom they exercised rulership. The plans for
re-organization
of local government (what the British called Native Administration)
based, as
it was theoretically supposed to be, on the peoples’ pre-colonial
socio-political systems necessarily placed emphasis on the ethnic
groups, or
ethnic nationalities as some prefer to call them. The 1930s–1950s thus
witnessed increasing ethnic awareness among our peoples in WarriProvince
as elsewhere. Greater ethnic awareness and sensitivity produced greater
tensions between our ethnic groups. This was, in some ways, an
unintended
result of British colonial rule. That fact, as we shall see as we
examine
Urhobo-Isoko reactions in the years 1932-1952, did nothing to assuage
the
tensions which developed.

As
we go on now to examine Isoko-Urhobo relations, we will discover that
the
British knew very little about the Isoko people. As I said earlier, in
the
years 1900-1926 the Isoko were very distant from Warri, the seat of the
British
government in what became WarriProvince. Visits
by
British administrative officers to Isokoland were few and far between.
It was
this which led to the creation of AseSub-District
as we saw
earlier. However, with the reorganization of the 1930s, both the Ase
sub-District and the Isoko court of Appeal were abrogated in 1932 when
the
Isoko were transferred to the newly created Sobo Division.33In
other words, after only six years in which
the Isoko were made to feel that they were part of what was going on in
WarriProvince,
that feeling was destroyed. The Isoko must thus have gone into their
new
Division feeling ill-used by the British.

In
my study of inter-group relations it has become quite clear to me that
the
advantaged group(s) can never enter into the feelings of the
disadvantaged. So
it was as between the Urhobo and Isoko in the years 1932 – 1952. In the
1931
Annual Report on WarriProvince we read: “The sub-tribes inhabiting
the WARRIProvince
are the “JEKRI, the SOBO, the KWALE-IBOS and the Western
IJOS."34The ISOKO are not
mentioned. Yet the British had created a Sub-District
for the
Isoko in 1926. In the Annual Report for 1932 it was reported, “The Sobo
Division…includes the Isoko–speaking SOBO clans of the former AseSub-District."35In that same report,
Uzere, an Isoko polity, is described as “the
headquarters
village group of the Isoko SOBO clan."36All of this, it would
appear by hind sight, in preparation for lumping
the
Isoko with ten Urhobo polities in the Sobo Division which came into
existence
in 1932. The baffling thing is that these two reports were written in
the years
in which British Intelligence Reports were being written on all
the
Urhobo and Isoko clans. None of those reports describes the Isoko as
Urhobo or
the Urhobo as Isoko. As we shall see presently, Urhobo leaders of this
period
were quick to cash in on these British misconceptions and to declare in
rather
insulting language that the Isoko are Urhobo. As I prepared for this
address, I
re-visited the Warri Provincial Annual Reports and discovered that in
the seven
years from 1939-1945, the name ISOKO does not appear in the British
colonial
officers’ reports on Native Administration.37It was as if the Isoko
were not part of WarriProvince;
as if they did not exist. Anybody interested in checking on the point
here made
should go and read the reports to which I have alluded. Against this
background, I can fully understand why it was that on 28 October, 1945,
all of
the Isoko polities signed a petition to the Senior Resident in Warri
asking
that the name Urhobo Division be changed to Isoko-Urhobo Division. We
will
return to this petition later.

Developments
in the Sobo Division (later Urhobo Division) fall into three phases.
The first
phase covered the years 1932-1939; the second 1940-1949, and the third
1950 to
independence. The first phase did not, it would appear, result in much
acrimony. Perhaps this was because the twelve Isoko polities (i.e. all
of
Isokoland) and the ten Urhobo polities were savouring the new
experiment. Even
so, however, these years laid the foundation for the Urhobo attitude
that came
to the fore in the 1940s. The Central Executive Council that
constituted the
native authority sat in Ughelli, the seat of the District Officer.38The court also sat in
Ughelli. This meant that all Isoko who had to
transact
any business at Divisional headquarters had to travel to Ughelli. This
is what
I mean when I argue, as I have done in a number of fora, that colonial
rule
created new inequalities among the peoples of Nigeria.
Ughelli acquired a new and
unusual importance for the Isoko in the years after 1932. I have not
researched
into it, but I would not at all be surprised if Isoko fathers gave
their
daughters in marriage to Ughelli men, so they could have a home in
Ughelli
whenever they had to visit Ughelli. Because all of Isokoland was in the
Sobo
Division, even those Isoko who in earlier years had had little
connection with
Ughelli were compelled by the new realities to be Ughelli-conscious.

It
was in the years 1940-1949 that the greatest tensions developed between
the
Urhobo of the Urhobo Division and the Isoko. In December 1940 there was
established the Urhobo Central Native Authority as it was now called.
There was
also a Divisional Court of First Instance and a Divisional Court of
Appeal
established for the Division. Ughelli remained headquarters.39Each polity had a “Clan
Council” which served as a subordinate Native
Authority. All the polities had equal representatives (two each) in the
Central
Native Authority except for two which had three representatives each by
virtue
of observable larger population. In the context of this address, the
details of
the working of the subordinate Native Authorities do not concern us. By
the
1940s the Isoko had become openly unhappy. Let the point be made that
in these
years the Isoko were not asking for a separate Division. What they
wanted was
for the Division to be called Isoko-Urhobo of Urhobo-Isoko Division in
order
for their identity to be recognized. At no time in the history of these
two
peoples before the 1930s were the Isoko regarded as Urhobo, even though
their
language had some similarity to the Urhobo language. To the chagrin and
anger
of the Isoko, the Urhobo not only opposed their proposals but began to
make
claims that the Isoko are Urhobo. It is this claim that generated the
tensions
between the two peoples in the 1940s and 1950s.

On
20 December, 1940, the Resident, WarriProvince,
Major R.L.
Bowen, addressed a meeting of the Urhobo Central Native Authority which
sat in
Ughelli. He began his addres with, “I salute the chiefs and people of
the
Urhobo Tribe gathered here today."40It is easy enough to
imagine how the Isoko delegates felt. The Resident
was, by
his address saying the Isoko did not exist. Then at a meeting of the
Urhobo
Executive Council held on 2 November, 1944, the Urhobo members proposed
that
Chief Oveje, who had been elected Chairman of the Council (Oveje
represented
the Urhobo polity of Olomu) should be elected as “the Annual Chairman
of the
Urhobo Divisional Council."41The regulations provided
that the Chairman should be elected each year.
The
Urhobo were working for a permanent Urhobo Chairman. At the same time
it was
proposed that Mr. (later Chief) Mukoro Mowoe, another Urhobo man,
should be
appointed Vice-Chairman, even though no provision was made for a
Vice-Chairman
in the regulations.42The Resident turned down
both proposals on the grounds that the
regulations
made it impossible for the proposals to be considered.43These proposals by the
Urhobo clearly indicate that they had no
consideration
whatever for the Isoko. Again, it is easy to imagine how the Isoko felt.

At
a meeting on 2 June, 1945, the Isoko delegates again asked for a change
in the
name of the Division. The records tell us that the reason they gave for
the
change of name was that “they felt that their name was dying off by the
present
name."44The Urhobo delegates
opposed a change. Because it was clear that the
two groups
could not come to an agreement, the Council decided that the Chief
Commissioner
of the Western Provinces should be asked to take a decision. It was
probably
what went on at this meeting that led to the setting up of a “Select
Committee”
of the Council to deliberate further on the matter and make
recommendations.
The Committee met on 1 July, 1944, and 12 January, 1945. The Urhobo
members
were Ovie Arumu, Duku, Obodo, Revd. Agori Iwe, Chief Ugen, and I. Jeje. The Isoko were led by Chief J.A. Akiri.
Other
members were D.A. Ogbor, Ogero, Ogodo, Unuafe and Okujeni.45

For
the Urhobo, Revd. Agori Iwe was the lead speaker. He argued that “The
name
Isoko is a local name for that part of the Urhobo nation."46According to him, Isoko
is to be understood in the same way as Okpe,
Jesse and
other Urhobo sub-groups. Stated the Urhobo group: “From the beginning
since the
advent of our government, the Isokos, Urhobos, Okpe and Jesse have
been
answering the name ‘Urhobo’."47The advent of our
government. Whose government? Urhobo government or
British
government? If the latter (which is the only thing that makes sense),
how can
the coming of the British constitute the beginning of the
emergence of
“Urhobo”? Chief Ugen was even more outrageous in his contribution.
According to
him, “Isoko is a nickname”. A change of name “is nothing but
retrogression."48The Isoko were stunned
that all of Isokoland was being likened to
Jesse,
Agbarho or Ughienvwe. Chief Akiri reminded his Urhobo colleagues that
twelve
Isoko “clans” were represented on the Council. How could the Urhobo, in
the
light of that reality argue that Isoko was just like Jesse? The Isoko
insisted:
“we were not originally called together (sic),"49meaning
that never before the new regime were the Isoko called Urhobo – which
position,
I believe, all at this conference would agree. Needless to say, the
Select
Committee could come to no agreement.

It
was no doubt the insults heaped on the Isoko by the Urhobo that led the
Isoko
Union to call a mass meeting of the Isoko for October 1945. Permit me
to quote
three paragraphs of the petition.50

The Division comprises the two co-ordinate
entities
-Isoko and Urhobo; and therefore, naturally, the Division should be
named
“Isoko-Urhobo Division” and not “Urhobo Division” to the exclusion and
disregard of Isoko. In this respect Isoko felt, and rightly, of course,
that
she has been meanly treated and regarded.

Our appeal to amend the name of our Division
has started
receiving official treatment in our Divisional Council since last year
1994;
but no decision has been reached. The delay of this matter is wounding
the
dignity and pride of Isoko as a nation and is creating an air of
dissension
among the two communities forming the Division. The present name as we
see it
must necessarily bring chaos since it favours one (Urhobo) establishing
her
name as a general name, and disregards the other (Isoko).

To
avoid wounding the social peace between us, we appeal to your Honour,
our Resident, to intervene to decide the issue to the interest of both
of us.

The
tone of the petition is amazingly devoid of rancour.

Permit
me a little digression. The President General of the Isoko Union at the
time of
the petition quoted above was Mr. S.O. Efeturi. Mr. Efeturi was
ordained a
priest in the Anglican Communion, after training at St. Michael’s
College,
Awka, in 1946. Revd. Efuturi, as he then became, served as the Vicar,
St.
Andrew’s (Anglican) Church, Warri, in the late 1950s. Before he was
posted to
Warri, there existed an “Urhobo-Itsekiri Section” of the church which
met for
worship in the church building in the afternoon on Sunday. During Rev.
Efeturi’s tenure as Vicar, he established an “Isoko Section” in St.
Andrew’s
Church. Because no time could be found for this new section to worship
in the
church building, it used to meet in one of the classrooms of St. AndrewsC.M.S.School,
Warri. The Urhobo
were outraged that this Isoko Vicar established an Isoko arm of the
church in
Warri. The Revd. Agori Iwe, the same person who had said the Isoko were
simply
one of the Urhobo clans was Archdeacon. When Revd. Efeturi was
transferred from
Warri to Oguta in Igboland (we were still part of the Diocese on the Niger
then),
the Isoko smelt a rat. Did the politics of Urhobo Division filter into
the
politics of the Church
of God?.51The Revd. Efuteri served
from 1946 to the early 1960s. Not once was he
preferred. Did he pay a price for daring to lead his people in their
struggle
to establish their God- given identity?

Although
the British authorities did not in 1945 grant the Isoko demand for a
change of
name of the Division, fairness demands that we put on record the fact
that the Court
of Appeal which was established in 1940 was made to sit in Ughelli to
hear
Urhobo appeals and in Oleh, in Isokoland, to hear Isoko appeals. When
the court
sat in Ughelli, it was presided over by an Urhobo “Clan Head”. When it
sat in
Oleh, it was presided over by an Isoko “Clan Head”. Because of the
basic
fairness of the Isoko demand for a change of name for the Division, one
would
have thought that the British would grant the demand. They did not. Nor
did the
Action Group government of Obafemi Awolowo that took over from the
British in
1957. The British, however, made one more concession. We turn our
attention to
that concession now.

The
issue of the name remained a sore point at the meetings of the Council.
The
debates were always acrimonious, and the District Officer was inclined
to
prohibit further debate. In 1946 he thought the Resident should impose
a
settlement. Wrote he, “The Isoko desire is undoubtedly earnest”. He
pointed out
that the idea of eventual separation had already surfaced. “It would
not, in my
opinion, be altogether advisable to reject the Isoko request merely
because the
urhobo elements… cannot agree."52Despite views like these
here expressed, the British, at provincial and
regional levels, kept arguing that the Isoko language, which they
called a
dialect, was so related to the Urhobo that there was no basis for a
change of
name! This was a strange argument for persons who were British. Despite
the
fact that the Scots and the English speak a language that is called
English,
the Scots remain Scots and the English English. When we refer to the
two groups
we use the word British – not English, not Scots. Let us also recall
the Ben
Elugbe thesis about Edo and the other
Edoid
languages being of the same antiquity. What this means is that Isoko
did not
develop from Urhobo or Urhobo from Isoko. The amazing thing was that
the
argument about language was not based on any empirical research.
Presumably,
because the Isoko have a smaller population than the Urhobo, it was
assumed
that the smaller grew from the larger! I repeat that, within my
knowledge,
there was no basis for the Urhobo claim, which arose from the British
decision
to place the Isoko in the Urhobo Division. When both the Isoko and
Urhobo were
in the Warri Division in the earlier years, the Urhobo did not claim
that the
Isoko are Urhobo. They began to do so only after the Sobo Division came
into
being.

In
September 1949 all of the Isoko polities again met over this issue and
sent yet
and another petition to the Chief Commissioner, Western Provinces. This
petition insisted that the Urhobo and Isoko are different peoples and
that
therefore the name of the Division as it was was “indefensible”. The
petition
drew the attention of the Chief Commissioner to the fact that England, Wales
and Scotland are
not
together known as England
but as Great Britain!
The Isoko were not averse to federating with the Urhobo in one Division
but the
name of the Division should reflect the federating entities –
Isoko-Urhobo
Division. It is only as I prepared for this address that I saw this
petition
for the first time.53I
have found it so persuasively written, and its language so controlled,
that I
attach it as an appendix to this address.

It
is difficult to appreciate why the British took the position they did.
In the
same province was a Division named Jerki-Sobo Division, so named
because it was
made up of Itsekiri and some Urhobo polities. Even with that name, the
Urhobo
kept agitating to be removed from that Division. The Isoko were not, in
the
petitions I have seen, asking to be given a separate Division as of
1949. They
merely asked that their name be reflected in the name of the Division.
The
British refused. Was it that the D.O. with his seat in Ughelli was
inclined to
respect the wishes of the Urhobo? Was it that there were certain
influential
Urhobo in warri who had the ears of the Resident?

Be
that as it may, the Resident eventually reached the conclusion that
“reorganization, involving recognition of the Isoko aspiration for more
direct
and intimate conduct of their own affairs was a matter of some urgeney."54By the end of 1949 the
Chief Commissioner granted approval in principle
to an
Urhobo/Isoko Federal Council that would serve as Superior Native
Authority to
an Isoko District Council which would sit in Oleh and an Urhobo
District
Council that would sit in Ughelli. The Federal Council was to sit in
Ughelli. !
This arrangement came into legal existence in April 1950. The Resident
reported
at the end of that year the Isoko were not completely satisfied that
they had
to deal with a Superior Native Authority and Treasury in Ughelli. But
for the
first time since 1932 the Isoko now had a Council that catered for
Isokoland as
a whole. It took another thirteen years before the Isoko were granted a
separate
administrative Division, after the Midwest Region was created. No other
group
in the old Warri, later Delta, Province was subjected to that kind of
administrative neglect, not to say oppression.

The
events discussed in this section of our presentation covered only
twenty years
of the history of the Isoko and Urhobo peoples – twenty years during
which the
British colonial administration refused, by acts of commission and
omission to
recognize the separate identity of the Isoko people; twenty years
during which
the Urhobo leaders, taking advantage of British administrative
arrangements,
began to orchestrate the claim that the Isoko are Urhobo.

Within
my knowledge, nothing has done more to sour Isoko-Urhobo relations than
the
developments we have just been discussing. It was as if the history of
peaceful
co-existence and socio-economic activities between various Isoko and
Urhobo
sub-groups was forgotten. The Isoko struggle began to be seen as an
anti-Urhobo
activity. Up till this day, most Urhobo people, learned or unlearned,
consider
us, the Isoko people, as Urhobo. Peter Ekeh, Chairman of the Urhobo
Historical
Society, writing as recently as 1998, which is just seven years ago,
said that
“the Sobo/Urhobo Division was free from extra-ethnic supervision."55Although subtly crafted,
Ekeh was implying that the Isoko and Urhobo
are one. I
reacted to that statement, and Ekeh faithfully published my reaction to
his
position and indicated in that footnote that “the point [Ikime] is
making is a
noteworthy one to which [he] had not given any great thought before
now."56What was Professor Ekeh
saying in that footnote? He was saying that
until that
point in time he had assumed indeed that the Isoko are Urhobo. In 1998.
Had he
also assumed that the Urhobo are Isoko? Can A be equal to B, and B not
be equal
to A? Indeed it is only the one who wears the shoe who knows where it
pinches.
The question which arises, is: What is the basis of this assumption? I
know of
no historical or other basis save that which we have been discussing in
this
section of this address. So pernicious has been the impact of British
administrative arrangements on Isoko-Urhobo relations.

The
Post-1952 Period

Soon
after the
events of 1950, Nigeria
entered into the era of decolonization.In the Western Region to which we then belonged, Nigerians began
to get
involved in governance. Chief Obafemi Awolowo became charged with
responsibility for Chieftaincy Affairs and Local Government. Under him
a new
system of local government was put in place.This new system gradually gave the Isoko greater autonomy in the
ordering of their local affairs. But the Isoko remained part of the
Urhobo
Division, despite unabated Isoko protests. As a university
undergraduate, I
used to go to the gallery of the Western House of Assembly to listen to
the
debates in the House. Mr (now Chief) James Otobo, who represented Isoko
in that
House, was officially referred to as the Member for “Urhobo East”!Thus in government circles, right up to
independence, it was as if we, the Isoko, did not have any legal
existence in
our own country.And this was solely,
and only, because the British colonial authorities decided that the
Isoko
people should be in the same Division as ten of the Urhobo polities.No one who has not suffered the kind of
denial inflicted on the Isoko can enter into their feelings or imagine
the
impact of that denial on the psyche of the Isoko people.

Against the backdrop of the
experience of the years 1932 into
independence, when the campaign began for the creation of the Midwest
Region,
the Isoko gave, as a condition for their support, the creation of an
Isoko
Division in the new region.This
condition was accepted, and fulfilled in 1963.The struggle that began in 1932 did not achieve its purpose
until
1963.It took over thirty years.

In the years since 1963,
Isoko-Urhobo relations have, on the whole
being peaceful.I fear, however that the
tensions of the 1932 – 1952 period have left a near permanent dent on
Isoko-Urhobo relations.There are still
many Urhobo who cannot accept the Isoko in any other mould save that of
the
Agori Iwes and Ugens.My limited
experience is that in the inevitable competition for office and
positons among
the political, professional and business elite in the wider context of DeltaState
and/or Nigeria,
the Urhobo and Isoko elite continue to operate against the backdrop of
the
years 1932-1952.

The creation of DeltaState
has given the Urhobo a new status, that of
being the largest ethnic group in DeltaState.And, like all other majorities in the
Nigerian political arrangement, they have tended to exploit this
majority
status to the fullest.Some years ago, I
was invited to deliver a Keynote Address to a meeting of stakeholders
at the DeltaStateUniversity.My letter of invitation was delivered to me
by an Urhobo Professor at that University. He came to Ibadan and
personally handed over the letter
to me.The same Professor was the Master
of Ceremonies at the lecture.He invited
all manner of people to the “High Table” except the Keynote speaker, an
Isoko
by the name Obaro Ikime. It took the intervention of the Pro-Chancellor
and
Chairman of the Governing Council of the University, an Ijo, to get the
learned
Urhobo Professor to ask me to the “High Table”.A small incident won’t you say?But there was a delegation of the Isoko Development Union at
that
lecture.That delegation was extremely
furious at the way I was treated, and told me so after the lecture. The
Master
of Ceremonies may have made a genuine mistake.But because of lingering memories of past years, that mistake
was
interpreted as a deliberate slight on the Isoko, the argument being
that were
the keynote speaker an Urhobo, the Master of Ceremonies would never
have made
that “mistake”.Why have I chosen to
tell this story?Because I consider it
necessary to warn the Urhobo and Isoko elite to take due heed to
themselves.
Although Isoko-Urhobo relations have not resulted, and I pray they
never
result, in the kind of conflagrations we have witnessed in
Urhobo-Itsekiri and
Ijo-Itsekiri relations, those relations (Isoko-Urhobo) remain very
sensitive
because of the Urhobo attitude to the Isoko towhich we have drawn attention in this address. Because we, the
elite,
are the ones who have access to knowledge of the type we are sharing
here, we
owe our respective peoples a duty not to allow personal interests and
ambition,
or the interests of a small clique, to drive us into actions that can
ignite
the fire of inter-ethnic violence.When
such a fire breaks out, the losses to our peoples far outweigh whatever
we the
elite gain from manipulating ethnic sensitivities in our favour. He who
has
ears to hear, let him hear.

Conclusion

We must now begin to draw this
address to a close.It is under the
auspices of the Urhobo Historical
Society that I am delivering this address.It is as a historian that I am speaking. I am the first to admit
that we
do not, to my knowledge, have any detailed scholarly work on
Urhobo-Isoko
relations, and to urge that such a study be undertaken. Our presently
limited
knowledge indicates contacts between some of those who today constitute
the
Urhobo and Isoko during the years of migrations.Those
contacts provide no basis whatsoever
for postulating that one group was vassal to the other. The Evwreni,
for
example, are said to have migratedfrom
Igboland. The Evwreni cannot, for that reason, be classified as Igbo!The tradition of origin as we have them today
do not provide any basis for a claim that the Urhobo are Isoko or Isoko
Urhobo.While some of what today we can
properly call Isoko and Urhobo sub-groups did engage in “war” in
ancient times,
we do not have any evidence, in the present state of our knowledge, to
postulate a conqueror-conquered relationship either way. Those who have
done
some work on these two peoples speak of intermarriage between them.
This has
persisted over the years. Sub-groups from the two peoples have been
involved in
inter-group commercial relations for centuries as they attended each
others’
markets. Evidence from the early 20th century indicates that
persons
who were Urhobo submitted themselves for trial at what the British
called the
“Eni Juju” – of Uzere.57Those who went to
Uzere did so on their own volition.We
cannot therefore use attendance at the
“Eni-Juju” as an index of Urhobo-Isoko relations.

The history of missionary
activities in Isokoland and Urhoboland
reveals that whereas Isokoland eventually fell into the jurisdiction of
what
was known as the Niger Mission with Onitsha
as headquarters, Urhoboland fell first under James Johnson’s Niger
Delta
Pastorate and later under the Yoruba mission.58The Niger Mission’s Isoko
District which included all of Isokoland,
also
included Ughweru and Evwreni.I believe
that this is what explains the fact that many Ughweru and Evwreni
people speak
the Isoko language fluently.When in the
heat of the 1940s the Isoko members of the Divisional Council of the
Urhobo
Division drew attention to the fact here adverted to, the Revd. Agori
Iwe was
quick to counter that the missionaries did not have “nation or tribe in
mind
when they formed their Districts."59What the Reverend
Gentleman implied was that when it came to
administrative
Districts or Divisions, the British always followed “nation or tribe”!He had to believe this for him to have
argued, as he did, that the Isoko are to be seen in the same way as
Jesse and
other Urhobo sub-groups. However, there was the Jekri-Sobo Division
which
clearly contradicted the presumed ethnic homogeneity of administrative
Divisions.The truth is that in
inter-group relations we always ignore facts that do not support our
position.

In his Assessment Report on
Olomu Clan, S. E. Johnson, commenting
on the Okpare Native Court
wrote that the Native court Areas “were on a territorial rather than on
clan
basis”. This point had been made earlier in this address when we looked
at the
way the British set up their administrative machinery. Onitsha
was for a while part of a CentralProvince with
Warri as
headquarters! Would any one want to argue that for that reason Onitsha belongs
to the same ethnic group as
those who lived in Warri?In the case of
the Urhobo and the Isoko, the British kept pointing out that the
languages and
socio-political institutions were similar.Could not languages and institutions of groups that were in a
given
ecological zone become similar over time?At any rate similarity is not the same thing as sameness. All
the Isoko
polities for example, have the odio institution. Among the
Urhobo, only
Ughweru and Evwreni have the odio institution. The Isoko do not
have the
ohovwore institution of many of the
Urhobo polities. In my view, the British position was based on
inadequate
knowledge of the two peoples.It is
amazing that Urhobo leaders like Agori Iwe could make the kind of
statements
they made, simply because the British took an action based on
inadequate
knowledge. I am sure it would shock some listening to me when I say
that the
British classified Ughweru as an “Isoko-speaking clan”, and this in the
1930s.60Did
the fact that many Ughwerupeople speak Isoko make them Isoko?It
is to prevent misinformation of this type
that the historian cannot afford to assume that whatever the colonial
authorities wrote is therefore correct.

Let us, as we close, remind
ourselves of some of the points made
in the Preamble that should now make more sense “Historical
events have
created all the basic human groupings – countries, religions, classes –
and all
the loyalties that attach to these.”The
Urhobo, the Isoko are a product of history.Time there was when it made more sense to speak of Olomu, Agbon,
Ughelli
rather than of Urhobo; of Uzere, Erohwa, Ozoro, Aviara rather than of
Isoko.But history created a British
Colony and Protectorate in what we now know as Nigeria.In that setting, people began to be referred
to by the languages they speak.That is
how the Isoko – those who speak Isoko, and the Urhobo – those who speak
Urhobo,
came into being.As these new groupings
came into existence, so loyalties developed around them over time.It is those loyalties that are at play when
we speak of Isoko – Urhobo relations.Unless we know the background to the emergence of these
loyalties, we
mis-handle them and worsen inter-group relations as a consequence.

“It is the events recorded in
history that have generated all the
emotions, the ideals, that make life meaningful, that have given men
something
to live for, struggle over, die for”. The history of Urhobo-Isoko
relations in
the period 1932 – 1952 is eloquent testimony to the truth of this
assertion.A Sobo Division came into
being.Neither the Isoko nor the Urhobo
were responsible for its creation.Once
created, however, it generated emotions and loyalties which had the
unintended
result of worsening Isoko – Urhobo relations.Thus the Urhobo argued as if what was on the ground in the
1932-1952
period had always been there – as if the Isoko had always been part of
Urhoboland when, in fact, in 1926 the same British who created the Sobo
Division had created a sub-district for the Isoko!This is why we need to know our history, so
that we can have a better understanding of how things came to be.The understanding which history enables us to
have should stand us in good stead when we deal with contemporary
inter-group
relations.That is why we study history:
so that knowledge of our past can inform the position we take in the
present,
and guide our planning for the future. Those who lead our ethnic
nationalities
today will do well to seek the understanding that history provides.

Sobo Division.What’s in a name?Although never
before today have I addressed Urhobo-Isoko relations in as much detail
I have
done in this address, I have had cause to draw attention to the issue
of
administrative arrangements and inter-group relations on at least three
previous occasions – and all in public lectures such as this.61I have warned that those
in government today should avoid the mistakes
of the
past.I have asked: why call a local
government with Koko as headquarters Warri North? Why, is a local
government
with Otor r’Ughienwe as headquarters called Ughelli South?What has Ughelli got to do with it?Will
it surprise anyone if one hundred years
from now some scholar reaches the conclusion that those in the Ughelli
South local
government area were vassals of Ughelli? Take another example – Warri
South
West Local Government.Given a ruler
with the title Olu of Warri; given the fact that in the Warri South
West Local
Government are Ijo who do not accept the suzerainty of the Olu of
Warri, could
not a neutral name have been found for that local government? Just as
the name
a person bears is his identity, so in some degree is the name we give
to our
administrative units.It was because the
name of the Division created in 1932 was Sobo (later Urhobo) Division
that the
Isoko who were part of that Division were regarded by the Urhobo
leaders of
that age as Urhobo, with the attendant tensions that that name
generated. Let
us therefore avoid the pitfalls of the past, as we take decisions
today; as we
plan for the future.DeltaState
of which the Urhobo and Isoko are part has seen frightening violence in
our
days as the Urhobo have fought the Istekiri; as the Itsekiri have
fought the
Ijo. Let there be no more fights. Let all of us dedicate ourselves to
promoting
peaceful relations among our various peoples.As always, however, there can be no peace without justice. Let
no group,
however large, however powerful, consider that any other group, however
small,
will allow itself to be destroyed without a fight. “Live and let live”
may be a
trite epigram. It is, nevertheless, an important ingredient of peaceful
inter-group relations, as of inter-personal relations.

Mr. Chairman, I am not sure
whether I have passed the tests that I
ask those who will write history to pass! What I have tried to do in
this
address is to present us with a slice of the history of the Isoko and
Urhobo,
and to ask us to seek to understand Urhobo-Isoko Relations in the light
of this
history. My hope is that the understanding that history gives will
enable us to
temper emotionalism with a degree of realism. If in the process of
trying to do
this I have given offence, I crave your forgiveness, even as I dare to
hope
that we have all gained some new insights today. It remains for me,
once again
to thank the Urhobo Historical Association for the privilege that has
been mine
to deliver this address, and to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you
Distinguished
Ladies and Gentlemen for your kind attention. Thank you very much
indeed.

APPENDIX

EGWAEOWHEGBE ISOKO,

c/o M. A. Warioghae/Sect.

OzoroTown

27th Sept. 1949

The Chief Commissioner Western
Provinces,

Secretariat, IBADAN

Thru’ The Resident,

Warri.

Sir,

At a meeting of the Egwae
OwhegbeIsokowhich
is a confederationofall Isoko Towns, it was decided that the Divisionalname‘UrhoboDivision’’ is not only wrong but should be
changed fora better.You are also reminded that this issue went before several
officers in 1946.

The name “Urhobo Diviison”
could have been right if the Division comprised a homogenous community
of Urhobo tribesmen.But this is not the
case – the Division thus named includes the Isoko tribe.There is plainly therefore an error in nomenclature
fundamental and indefensible. The Egwae Owhegbe Isoko submits that the
name should be thus amended – “ISOKO-URHOBO DIVISION”.

The British is reputed the
world over as loving fair play.We also
know that our honoured administrative officers will disdain to defend
what they see is both wrong and oppressive. This specialquestion of the value of a federating capacity in a name
is not new to the Englishmen. England,
Wales, and Scotland are not together known as England or any other local tribesname
but as Great Britain.
In that single name can be seen common sense and fair play to all the
entities that make up GreatBritain.
Even in a colonial territory like the Sudan the name is aptly
qualified by the epithet ‘Anglo –Egyptian’. Here again
fair play is self evident. We shall not be denied fair play. The Egwae
Owhegbe Isoko begs to submit that a better name for the Division should
be ‘ISOKO URHOBO DIVISION’’.

We shall not be deterred by
arguments that our tribe is small., or that this request is a tendency
to separatism and disunity, or that after all we are of the same stock
as the Urhobos so one name is enough or that the office work involved
in changing the name is so big as tobe
undesirable. We know that our tribe is large in this division, your
statistics can tell you that. We know too that we do not desire
separation. Besides it is not true unity in which one loses his
identity; it is a submersion. An attempted fusion of people, every body
can tell you, is an impossibility. The Isoko people are not prepared to
surrender their identity, or adopt a new one. About Isokoand Urhobos being one stock, all the world isone stock, yet people delight in retaining their
identities, the Briton in particular. All these arguments we have heard
before and consider trivial and unstatesmanlike because they evade the
issue. The Egwae Owhegbe Isoko submits that the name ‘’Urhobo
Division’’ is an anomalous nomenclature that is outdated and must be
substituted with the name‘’Isoko-Urhobo
division’’. They would view opposition to this submission as an act of
oppression, a forcing of a loyal tribe to lose its tribal identity for
political convenience.

The merit of the suggested new
name is that it gives both tribes their identities and therefore scope
for the unity of the two or more recognized entities. It recognizes
that Isoko as a tribe has a place in Nigeria. It shows also that
the Briton in Nigeria
intends to so be fair at least to the Isoko man.

You will agree that we have
given our submissions in clearly unmistakable language, We have given
them without bitterness and in good faith. We trust your sense of fair
play. Lastly we hope that you will not agree with us and than fail to
do anything now.

7Ekeh, Peter,
“Introduction” to Warri City and British
Colonial Rule in Western Niger Delta edited by Peter P. Ekeh,
Buffalo, New
York, Urhobo Historical Society, 2005, pp. 20 and 22.

8Ikime,
Obaro, Merchant
Prince of the Niger
Delta,
Ibadan,
The
Author, 1995, p. 52. (The edition here cited is the Centenary Edition
published
for the celebration of the centenary of the Ebrohimi War. The original
edition
was published in London
by Heinemann Educational Books in 1968).

14Ikime, Obaro, In
Search of Nigerians: Changing Patterns of Inter-Group Relations in an
Evolving
Nation State, President Inaugural Lecture delivered at the 30th
Congress of the Historical Society of Nigeria, 01 May, 1985, published
by the
author at Ibadan.
p. 5.

55Peter
P. Ekeh, “Mukoro Mowoe and Urhobo
Destiny and History”
in Isaac O. James Mowoe (Editor), Leadership, Unity and the Future
of the
Urhobos, p 51.The book in which
Professor Ekeh has a chapter is a collection of lectures on the
occasion of the
50th Anniversary of the death of Chief Mukoro Mowoe. The lectures were
mimeographed and bound. It carries no date of “publication”, but the
lectures
were given in 1998.

56See
footnote at p. 51 of the book cited above,
I am grateful
to Prof. Ekeh for quoting my view in full in that footnote.